Whether the provisions of Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-21-101, and Tennessee law are unconstitutional

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW As is the case of many Tennessee defendants, seemingly unbeknownst to them, counsel, the court and/or prosecutor, many years later they, like the Petitioner, have come to learn that they have negotiated and accepted an illusionary plea and sentencing structure of which is none ; existent under Tennessee Law. Previously Tennessee’s legislature had legal safeguards in place to always effectively challenge such pleas/sentences. These laws, however, have been amended to nullify any review or relief if the illusionary false sentence and plea on its face were in theory favorable to the Petitioner. The effect? Without notice, counsel, a hearing, or any judicial proceedings, prisoners, like Mr. Vick, have their pleas/sentences changed and increased by years with absolutely no means within which to challenge such increases. The question asks: J. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 36.1 OF THE TENNESSEE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED § 29-21-101, AND TENNESSEE LAW ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEREIN THE SAME DO NOT PERMIT A CHALLENGE TO A MATERIALLY IMPOSSIBLE ILLEGAL AND VOID SENTENCE OF WHICH A DEFENDANT ENTERED INTO WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE AS TO ITS ILLEGALITY OR NO POTENTIAL FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT-AND OF WHICH RESULTED IN A SIX YEAR SENTENCE INCREASE ABSENT NOTICE, COUNSEL OR A HEARING-CREATE SUFFICIENT MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND AN “INJUSTICE AS TO WARRANT SUPREME COURT REVIEW? ay lii